Friday, July 29, 2016

GA's New Blog- UPDATED

UPDATED: Due to the tremendous feedback GA's getting on the above graphic, "Donald's First Wall," I have attached a high resolution version for anyone's use (blast it around, publish with a credit.) Thank you.High Resolution image (for download):

_____________________________

Folks, I've decided to keep my views on national election politics off this blog, because frankly, they don't belong here.

GA's masthead reads: "One gal's musings about the Hoboken political scene." That's what it is.

What I really like about Hoboken's political scene is how Dems, Repubs, Independents, Libertarians, Socialists, and Commies will agree (or not) on the direction of Hoboken government, and work side-by-side for the same candidates, be they Reformer, Dark Sider, or Independent.

Add national politics to the mix, and the souffle falls.

So, that's why I've started a blog, to get my ya-ya's out about the man 140 characters away from the Oval Office.

Love the blog, especially this wall graphic, GA. It is a treasure. A picture does say a thousand words. I have to give you props for starting a second blog to post your thoughts on the national election, unlike that other nameless local blog that has turned in a cesspool of conservative, pro-Trump, rabidly foaming at the mouth anti-Clinton venom and bile. It is a shame that a once vibrant and important source of news regarding the local politics of a 53k person relatively progressive city has lost its focus. I just cant go there, it makes me sick to see how it has tuned into this creepy mess. I doubt that many of the readers that I know have tuned out already will ever return. I hope that his new audience will be supportive, but there are plenty of kooky sites similar to what his has become. I hope that you have the time to keep both blogs relevant to their different audiences. Long live GA!

Thanks. I love good punditry on national politics, just not here. For peeps of GA's political persuasion, a personal favorite is the hilarious Rude Pundit. Read what he's written about the Dem and GOP conventions, and Mike Pence.

Of course for those delicate flowers who cannot stomach a little vulgarity and/or file SLAPP suits alleging you are defamed by "living in Edgewater", the Rude Pundit is not for you- and for the latter, go fuck yourselves.

Fuck off, asshole. Trump has no relationship with any major financial institution in the U.S. Not because he doesn't want their money, it is because no major financial institution wants to do business with him - Bloomberg was right about Trumps'is business acumen. His money mainly comes from a bunch of Russians with plenty of cash -that is a commonly known fact in the real estate world. Check out who he leases, and subleases, space to in his dump of a Trump Tower. The guy is a menace.

finding it increasingly difficult now to go to that other local blog. as a liberal democrat, i actually have interest in reading informed conservative perspectives (like the WSJ editorial pages, weekly standard, national review) in order to understand both sides of the issues, but that's not what that other guy offers. instead, it's all long-winded, convoluted conspiracy theories and an unwillingness (or inability) to have a rational discussion. some of the posts and comments actually creep me out.

it's really sad, because that other blog was so important to fighting for good government in hoboken and we all know he suffered personal and financial attacks for his worthy efforts. i hope he comes around.

Ah, that's right. Thank you. I recalled that Cory Booker said, "When they go low, we go high" in an CNN interview where he was asked how he felt about Trump's tweeting about him (Booker), but Michelle said it first!

“Hoboken's hospital went down and vendors weren't paid but no one claimed this was Mayor Zimmer corruption or that it was done to intentionally harm hospital vendors and others. No comparison to Hillary and Bill Clinton's decades of domestic and international corruption”

What an utterly contemptuous and ridiculous statement that appeared on that other never to be mentioned site. The vile moral equivalency that is implied in the post is like pissing all over Reform and questioning the ethics and integrity of the Mayor, Toni T and all of the other volunteers on the board that fought mightily against the efforts of Beth Mason and the OG to shut the hospital down and force the City into bankruptcy because of the 52 Million in bonds that the City would be responsible to pay as a result.

The hospital was a public asset. It was a onetime bankruptcy. Neither the Mayor nor any of the board members took a DIME from the bankruptcy. That situation is diametrically opposed to Trump, who filed multiple bankruptcies and bragged about how he took MILLIONS from his casinos in Atlantic City AT THE SAME TIME that he was stiffing small business, many of which had to file for their own bankruptcies or went out of business, because Trump did not pay them. Bastard.

The sentiment expressed in the post is actually the same type of idiotic and juvenile thoughts (or non-thoughts) that Trump utters, almost always without thinking. He spews the first snarky thing that pops into his head which he thinks will be an insult and “take down” his opponent. His comments about the Gold Star Muslim mother were beyond the pale. His comments on his “sacrifices” are too disgusting to fathom, especially as he is trying to compare his sacrifices in working hard and creating jobs to somehow to be the equivalent to the sacrifices that the Khan family has made in defense of this county. Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, dodged the draft and none of his kids have served, despite this county being at was for the past 15 plus years. What a fucking douche without a soul. He has, in fact, sacrificed nothing. I don’t think he understand the word empathy.

But he did not stop there, his recent comments that he built ramps for the disabled in many of his buildings as proof that he would not make fun of that disabled report is beyond bizarre. Those ramps and other accessibility features are REQUIRED under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which have been incorporated into the building codes all across America many years ago. What a fucking douche bag.

As Bloomberg said, he knows a con when he sees one. BTW, it is an open secret the real estate world that Rump relies upon private Russian money to support his ventures. Maybe that is why he won’t release his tax returns. Chicken sit baby.

It is this kind of nonsense, as well as the support that the other site never to be mentioned gives to Trump, in an apparent blind hatred for HRC, that is the reason that site has turned into a caricature of Hoboken411. All that site is doing is unwittingly exposing Trump to be unfit to be the president and the commander in chief. Perhaps I should be grateful for that.

I have said to others, that his mention of Cammarano on his site as a paean to Reform is too little too late, as the horses have already left the barn and it is highly unlikely that they will return or that he will get any carrots from Reform in the future. Piss off.

Where are the personal insults? Criticizing a blogger's POV is not "personal" MSV is in the Tank with a Muslim hating scumbag like Trump. Seems the above posts were being quite diplomatic, something Trump and many new names on MSV are devoid of

In fact, it's not the POV I reacted to as "personal." It's juxtaposing a misguided friend's name with someone truly evil. Say what you will, that was IMO, entirely gratuitous and "personal." The POV stands without it. I would even argue a reasonable POV is diminished equating a person who has done so much good in our community with someone who has done so much harm.

I'm not a Donald fan by any stretch. I certainly can't stand Hillary either. I don't expect to change anyone's mind with the following statement, nor am I looking to argue this point further. I hope you'll at least consider it for a moment:

Hillary Clinton is to National Politics what Beth Mason is to local politics. Without her fundraising potential, she's nothing.

I base this observation on the fact that people who have in the past hated her (including President Obama) have turned around and endorsed her in her run. Anyone who wants a future with the democratic party has fallen into line. . .and there's a reason why (and that reason is money).

I'm not voting for either the republican or the democratic candidate. They are both scraping the bottom of the barrel. I will be voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, whoever is polling higher on election day.

sorry snoop, but there's no comparison between HRC and BM on ANY level. HRC spent decades in public service after college helping underprivileged and handicapped children to get an education, took on healthcare reform as a first lady, worked across the aisle as senator, fought for the state and 9/11 responders and handled world affairs as secretary of state. She's running for president because there isn't anyone in either party who can match those credentials and experience.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but it strikes me as a privileged opinion of someone who can survive regardless of who wins. As you female friends who could lose their right to chose, or your immigrant friends who could see hardworking family members deported, or your muslim friends who will be considered enemies because of the god they worship, or your LGBT friends who stand to lose their rights as Americans.

Not everyone can afford the privilege of casting a protest vote. Consider yourself lucky. Many people aren't.

Criticisms against Clinton never stand up on closer scrutiny. They are only the angry lies fabricated by a disenfranchised, disconnected and disrespected Republican party. Since the day her husband took office, she's been the target of a witch hunt and in all those decades, a Republican-led congress, a Republican-led senate ad a Republican-led FBI have found no indictable offenses or evidence of wrong-doing, try as they might. This list includes Whitewater, Benghazi and the emails.

But that's all they've got. They have to make things up because just as with Obama, they can't say they hate hime "because he's black", anymore than they can say "because she's a woman". Well, maybe Trump would say those things. Forget the sexes and simply compare the resumes of all. Heck, even add Johnson & Stein to the mix. If, after all the made-up shit the Republicans have thrown at her and the fiction that others are willing to parrot she's still willing to run, we're lucky.

But know this anonymous @ 11:04: a vote for Stein or Johnson is a vote for Trump.

@ all the anons:1. I am a female, and I am not the least bit concerned about abortion law. It's not going anywhere. And since I don't believe in partial birth abortions for any reason outside of medical necessity (and I've never heard of this being the case because generally speaking they will do everything they can to save that baby once it's that close to viable), I am not terribly concerned about those who decide once the baby is viable to kill it through a partial birth abortion.

2. If you really believe that Trump's rhetoric is going to get traction in congress and muslims are going to be deported (or hispanics or anyone else who is here LEGALLY) I've got a bridge to sell you. If you care about illegals being deported, that's certainly your prerogative, but it's not my concern. I suspect we'll see a means for amnesty regardless as to who is president in the next 5-10 years.

3. All my Trump friends say a 3rd party vote is a vote for Hillary, all my Hillary friends say a 3rd party vote is a vote for Trump. How about this, MY THIRD PARTY VOTE IS A VOTE AGAINST TWO AWFUL MAINSTREAM CANDIDATES.

you're "not the least bit concerned with abortion law"???? the next president will likely appoint two or three supreme court justices. if trump gets in, he's already listed a bunch of conservative picks who would strike down row v wade.

and how do you know what he's now saying is "rhetoric" which will somehow fall by the wayside once he's elected? he's already targeted muslims as suspicious because of the god they worship, and was cheered by many republican congresspeople when he called mexicans criminals and rapists (not to mention unqualified to be judges).

the fact that discrimination again immigrants is "not your concern" pretty much sums up your privileged worldview: if it doesn't impact me personally, screw it.

Thanks for your opinion anon 4:45. I am not a single issue voter, so the handwringing on abortion isn't going to get me. By the way, abortion law is not of any concern to me because I don't believe it will be struck down. In order for SCOTUS to strike it down, you need someone to have standing to challenge the law (so they're going to have to challenge a law regarding limited abortion or challenge a law where abortion is banned, where is that exactly?), then they have to lose in court, again on appeal and have cause to appeal to SCOTUS. Then SCOTUS has to grant a writ of certiori. "The Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each Term. The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 80 cases.."--that's from their website. So no, the handwringing over Roe vs. Wade is hardly worth it. It's up there with voter ID. Just parties pandering to their base. In fact, when Dems held the majority of Congress from 2008-2010, they could have passed a federal law on abortion and chose not to. Why is that, if it's so up in the air and at the whim of the supremes?

I don't believe that Congress is going to suddenly go nutty and vote 50+% to do any of the crap Trump is spewing. Again, in order to get that type of law passed first you need someone to introduce the legislation, then you need the house & the senate to vote yes on it at 50%+1. Not bloody likely, there aren't enough teapartiers or one tremors to vote yes. Again, dems couldn't even get affordable care through without tons of giveaways, and you're worried about overarching illegal alien reform & mass deportation? In addition to the above, where is the money coming from for this? Let's get real.

To be clear, Trump said that illegals were criminals (they are if they're here illegally, that's a crime) and "When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. […] When Mexico sends its people they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you; they’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting.” So no, he didn't call all Mexicans criminals and racists.

It reads like you want to hate Trump, and it's ok to do so, absolutely. But at least TRY to get the reasons for your hatred right.

Here's why I'm against Trump: He doesn't have the temperament to govern, nor does he care enough to learn what he needs to know to be a good president.

I'm against Hillary because although she's knowledgeable, she's a lying, power hungry, say anything to get elected type. I think she's an empty suit.

So I'm going to vote 3rd party. Either Stein or Johnson.

But I'm certainly not going to sit here and worry about nonsense and use that as a reason to vote for one bad candidate or the other.

Everyone has the right to throw away their vote, even if it's in some vague sense of "protest". Savor the fact that you apparently have the luxury of doing so, Snoopy. Many people less fortunate -- or with different lifestyles or circumstances -- than you do not.

anon 10:48- You've not refuted one thing that I've stated. You just hurl insults and accusations about my privileged lifestyle. If that's what you believe that's fine. But as I stated in my original post, I'm not here to argue or convince anyone, I just hope that people will consider not voting for "the lesser of two evils".